DOUBLE STANDARD

Tell me which scenario appears to be a severe case of “unequal treatment” of the affected group:

An individual in a poor, crime-riddled neighborhood claims she was raped. No individuals in the neighborhood are summarily removed from their homes and detained.

A Muslim accused of constructing a pipe bomb is apprehended and brought into custody, but all other Muslims he associated with remain with their families.

A Catholic priest accused of child molestation is taken into custody, but all other priests, many of whom may or may not be guilty of a similar crime, remain with their parish.

An anonymous woman calls authorities and claims she was abused by her Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ husband, and 400 children of that faith are taken from their families, detained and "reprogrammed."

As much as one may disagree with the doctrine and practice of that particular church, ya gotta wonder.

Picture, for a moment, the typical American city, with its street gangs, rapes, murders, incest, child abuse, spousal abuse, drug abuse, robberies, and assaults. Asserting the standard applied to the Fundamentalist LDS church, 25% of the population of this nations' largest cities would be taken into custody and reprogrammed by the state of Texas.

Who made the judgement that the practices of this church are worse than all of the crimes listed above? And the most puzzling question of all...if there was a crime committed, why were the children taken from their mothers instead of finding the person who allegedly committed the crime as has been the practice in this country for the last 200 years?

So much for freedom of religion...destroying an entire church for one alleged criminal who has not even been found. [Note: Later found and confirmed to be a hoax. Vindication!]

Crying "judgmental" without being judgmental

That is an interesting trick.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Just about anyone who has an opinion about a person, a religion, or a behavior is called a bigot nowadays. Oddly, this phenomenon more often than not results in the name caller becoming as much of a bigot as the accused. Either that or the term is overused and misapplied.

For example, if you provide indisputable evidence that the preponderance of terrorist acts are conducted by Muslims based on their Koranic scripture, you will be called a bigot, intolerant, or judgmental.

If you point out Jeremiah Wright’s numerous racist, inflammatory, and anti-American statements, you will be called a bigot.

If a presidential candidate states facts to bring to light contrasting positions of other candidates that are believed to be inferior to his own, he will either be accused of being a bigot or, at best, a negative campaigner.

Expressing any critical opinion about an individual or group or about their behavior is more politically incorrect than any time I can recall in the past 50 years. Calling someone a bigot has recently overtaken the overuse of the word judgmental!

What has happened to the ability of people in this country to express intellectually honest statements and opinions? Name calling, whether referring to someone as a bigot or judgmental is chilling to free speech and legitimate communications. Since when has it become inappropriate to speak accurate opinions, facts, and truth?

If you have a strong opinion about someone or something, and express it, chances are you will be called a bigot or judgmental. If you say you will not tolerate an individual's or group's bad or threatening behavior, you will be called a bigot or judgmental. What is wrong with being distrustful of Islamists when 99% of all terrorist activity is conducted by Islamists? And the "moderates" among them barely denounce this fact. Historically, that "judgement" has been characterized as "wise discernment." But no, not in today's lexicon. If you are “discerning” about the actions of an individual or a group, and express the basis for your discernment, you will be labeled a bigot or judgmental.

Bottom line. Our rabidly politically confused (the word "correct" should be replaced by the word "confused") culture has declared that there is no distinction between right and wrong. We shall not bring to anyone’s attention any distinction between right and wrong. Anyone who attempts to draw such a distinction will be chastised as either a bigot or judgmental.

You know what I’m thinkin’? I’m thinkin’ that anyone who labels any of my comments as bigoted or judgmental can go stick it. Why? Without things we can believe in as right, true, preferable, and desirable, as compared to things that are wrong, false, to be avoided, or undesirable, we are in deep trouble as individuals, as a community, as a culture and as a country. Without deeply held, well founded values that are worthy of defending, promoting, and contrasting with competing and opposing values, we might as well roll up the sidewalks and turn off the lights. Not everyone who has an opinion is a bigot.

What about those who do the name calling? What about the Muslims who accuse those who point out the violent acts of Muslims of being a bigot?

What about defenders of Jeremiah Wright who accuse those who point out his many racist, inflammatory, and anti-American statements of being a bigot?

What are these name callers up to? Can you see through their name calling? Are they being intellectually honest? Are they so desperately committed to the indefensible that they lose touch with rational thought? Or don’t care?
Keep that great probability in mind the next time you either hear someone making the accusation of “bigot” or “judgmental” or if you consider making those accusations yourself.

In too many instances (not all) such name calling makes the accuser one.

And, by the way, these are just fact-based opinions we're expressing. No need for name calling, like "judgemental" and "bigot." Chill! A person can't open his mouth today without some overly sensitive ass complaining and name calling.

Oops. Did I just say that? Good. I feel better.

Huckabee is either word challenged or an idiot

At a public rally yesterday, Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee reacted to the Bhutto assassination by expressing “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.”

Did he mean "apology" or did he mean "condolences" or "sympathy?" Can you imagine if Huck was employed by Hallmark: "We express our sincere apologies for the death of your beloved mother. We really didn't mean to do it."

"Apology" in the MS Word Thesaurus means "admission of guilt", "request for forgiveness", "confession", or "act of contrition." Oh yes, and "regret". Not the kind of regret like "I'm sorry that happened", but the kind of regret that means "I'm sorry I did it."

There he goes again, expressing his true colors of one who blames the US, our culture, our values, for all the world's ills. We are somehow complicit in the assassination of Bhutto. Yes, that's it - we antagonized the adherents of "the religion of peace" into being less than peaceful once again.

To demonstrate this as a possibility, here is a quote from Time magazine...

"But there are some who think the Bush Administration is not without blame. Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. 'Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration,' he says. 'People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration.' "

Wow...Time magazine dug up Hussain Haqqani to proclaim that we bear responsibility because we didn't provide security for an opposition candidate in an Islamic nation? Oui!!! Is this what Huck is apologizing for?

Huck, a true Democrat, showing who he is even earlier in his campaign than Jimmy Carter did. Or does Huck just have a dismal vocabulary?

Chilling

It's bad enough that Islamists assassinated Benazir Bhutto, the ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan yesterday. What is chilling is the preference of the average Pakistani on the street for a political leader...

46% for Osama Bin Laden, the acknowledged mastermind of 9/11 and the "destroy the west" mantra.

38% for current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf

9% for US President George Bush (this is hardly a surprise since his polls are not much higher in the US.)

What does this tell us about the direction of Pakistan and their nukes? Additional background is provided here.

Couple this with the second most popular baby's name in Great Britain: "Muhammad", the forebear of "the religion of peace." (Where is my little "puking" emoticon when I need it?)

If I Were Romney's Speechwriter...

...I would include the following main points in his "religion speech":

I would explain that the several core beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints cause it to possess a doctrine and history that is arguably one of the most consistent with the founding values of this nation. These include:

Free agency: Freedom or Liberty. The right to act freely to do the right thing or the wrong thing.

Responsibility: The responsibility, before God, to do the right thing in accordance with Scriptural principles of love, forgiveness, diligence, perseverence, and personal responsiblity and accountability before God.

Importance of the Family: Next to trust in God, the family is the most important set of relationships, forming the foundation for learning, responsibility and civility. Few institutions stress the need to keep the family unit strong more than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Eternal progression: The innate desire of people and the will of Heavenly Father to consistently become more Christlike, more Godly in our attitudes and actions. If evangelicals condemn this doctrine, they are condeming the Biblical mandate to be Godly. If not more like God, then what? More like Satan?

Faith/works: Acknowledge that the Bible teaches both faith and works as essential components of a unified doctrine. Mormons believe Christ died for our sins, and at the same time understand that we must persevere in faith in striving to be more Christlike through good works. If evangelicals condemn this doctrine, they are condemmning major portions of the Biblical mandate for the perseverence of the saints.

Origins of the Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was founded in America, born out of the principles of religious freedom and tolerance.

Tolerance toward all religions and no religion: Recognizes, based on the historical experience of the church, how wicked religous persecution can be. (This is in stark contrast to the religion of Islam, which has demonstrated itself to have the polar opposite view toward religous tolerance.)

United States was founded by divine providence: The Churchs' doctrine parallels the beliefs of the founding fathers of this nation that this country has a divine purpose and a divine destiny.

All of these core values of the Church ought to be highlighted to inform the voters of Romneys own core values.

What I hope Romney does not do is apologize for his religion, or suggest, as did John Kennedy, that his religion will take a subservient role, a "back seat" to his role as President. A President's faith should inform and enhance his Presidency. Romney's faith provides ample evidence that upholding and defending the constitution of this nation is entirely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He knows that this nation was formed out of these shared religious principles. The nation did not become "a god" to replace God. Individuals, including our Presidents, should remain free, in fact held accountable, to have core values that are greater than the nation that they are chosen to lead and serve.

Huckabee vs. Nation of Laws

For the record, Mike has been one of my top two preferred candidates. He has been growing on me as he has been growing in the polls. (You can guess who my other favorite is.:))

Besides being drawn to a candidate who is conservative, demonstrably moral, a lucid speaker with good presence and a quick wit, I need someone who recognizes the stupidity of flaunting our immigration laws.

Two events occurred today that shook my confidence in Huck:

1) His terrible record on enforcing immigration laws while governor of Arkansas was revealed – see here, and
2) I listened to his interview on the Sean Hannity show this afternoon where he justified the actions of illegal aliens.

This is the way the interview went: Sean was debating Mike on the need to enforce our immigration laws. Mike played the “poor victim” card in defending the actions of aliens entering this country illegally when he said, "...if I needed to feed my family, I'd do the same thing..."

This was a dumb as s--- response on two levels:

1) He is assuming most illegals enter this country because their families back in Mexico are “starving”. More accurately, they sneak into this country to take advantage of our largess and pitiful law enforcement to enhance their standard of living. It is doubtful starvation has anything to do with their reason for being here in most cases.

2) He justifies breaking the law on flimsy grounds. There is nothing wrong with an individual working to enhance his standard of living. But is “enhancing your standard of living” justification for breaking the law? Is “feeding your family” even a basis for law breaking? Can you imagine the anarchy that would prevail if we all practiced what Mike preaches? Don’t we all want to enhance our standard of living. Let’s see, which law is easiest to break without folks doing anything about it? Oh, I forgot. They really won’t do anything about it because they feel sorry for me – they might even think I’m starving when I’m not.

If Huckabee was portrayed as a “conservative” up to this point, his sentiments here sure destroy that myth. His attitude amply demonstrates liberal values:

- Assume people are starving even when they aren’t
- Assume we need to help them, even if there are other ways for them to be self-sufficient
- Just about anything justifies flaunting our laws.

For a plain ‘ol US citizen to justify ignoring our laws is bad enough. But for a Presidential candidate to justify law-breaking at the same time he proposes to lead “a nation of laws” is insane. Anarchy, anyone?

Evangelicals have warped sense of priorities...

...especially where Mormons are concened. For many Evangelicals, being anti-Mormon is more improtant than being concerned about right to life or the Islamic threat. Very strange.

I used to watch Pat Robertson a couple of decades ago in my darker days. I used to respect the man during that period. Some may speculate that when a man reaches 77 years of age, his decision-making abilities begin to recede a bit. The starker reality is that many "evangelical", and especially "fundamentalist Christians" tend to be ignorantly, and rabidly anti-Mormon (aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

Talk about flip flop! His endorsement of Rudy was a head-spinner!

Robertson has a long history of preaching against abortion. That had been one of his most passionately held opinions in his decades of televangelism. The only reason I can discern for Pat's pathetic priority, and one that reflects the attitude of most fundamentalist Christians, is his disdain toward Mormons. He apparently prefers to support an abortion candidate than the candidate who is by most accounts more closely aligned with his conservative social values than any other: Mit Romney. Why do you suppose this is so?

Some "evangelicals" I have known have a very narrow view of Christianity. If you don't believe the precise doctrine they believe, you are not "Christian", as they define it. Many spend more time worrying about Mormons than Muslims! They lose their ability to distinguish between degrees of good and evil. And they do this out of blind prejudice rooted in ignorance.

In Pat's case, he apparently spends more time worrying about Mormons than about abortionists who kill babies or Islamic doctrine that fosters hate, terror and intolerance.

"Values". What the heck are they?

The presidential campaign is rife with the "values" thing. Both Democrats and Republicans claim they understand the importance of "values", the need to defend our "values", to have strong "family values", ad nauseum.

What vague, meaningless tripe. What do they mean? Values are like belly buttons: everyone has them. Radical Islam has values, Al Capone had values, Brittany Spears has values. Even I have values.

What we don't hear much is a definition for "values." Unfortunately, most of the traditional values we've long held are out of vogue and the brunt of jokes and disdain. Traditional families, traditional gender roles, traditional moral behavior are all out of favor. The big pop-value now appears to be absolute tolerance of just about anything. A word for that is amorality. A made up synonym is "avalueity". This gets close to the meaning of most political messages.

Could this be why we don't hear any definition given on the stump: We've lost our "value-system" in this nation? Absolute tolerance for anything results in a valueless culture. A valueless culture is difficult to defend or promote. This explains, in part, why a large portion of our population cannot sustain a war more than a few months. We think that our values (whatever they are or used to be) are no better, maybe worse than, anyone elses. We are into self-loathing. Unfortunately, there are major populaton groups on earth who love their values more than we love ours (even if we could agree what they were), who believe their values are worth fighting for, and literally blowing themselves up for.

Granted, our military and many conservatives have a strong traditional value system that motivates and sustains them. But a large, influential, and growing portion of our population has lost their values compass.

How well does this scenario bode for our nation: A culture without values to motivate and sustain its' will, perseverance, and endurance versus a culture with values so strong and deeply held that they turn themselves into human bombs and are numerically the fastest growing population group and religion on the planet. I am speaking of Islam.

We are in a "values" war. And we will be on the losing end if we cannot rediscover values worth defending and promoting. The three decades of mocking and joking and ridiculing (e.g. Garrison Keillor, famed liberal, culture-mocking star of "A Prarie Home Companion" and late night comedy generally) and challenging the deeply held values of the past 200 years is not helpful to our survival. Nothing of any great society-sustaining ability has replaced those values that we have ACLUed out of existence.

I'm all for not taking ourselves too seriously and the occasional joke about our culture. The problem is, these jokesters and mockers and challengers really mean it. They really do seem to hate our historical culture and the values that founded our nation.

An excellent book well worth reading or listening to is "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" by Mark Steyn. He identifies our "values" problem as the greatest challenge to our success in the face of Islamic resurgence. To all of our valueless libs, can you say "Dhimmi" dummy?

I Don't Blame Musharraf

Pakistan is a "moderate" Islamic nation, it has been our ally in the war on terror (which really should be renamed, more accurately, "the war on the religion of hate and intolerance") and it has lots of nukes.

There has been increasing terrorist activity by the Jahadi wing of Islam in Pakistan (blowing up non-Muslim businesses, etc.) not to mention their hosting (involuntarily???) Al Quida in the Paki-Afgan mountains. Our nation has urged President Musharraf to do something meaningful in response to this recent run up in Jahadi activity in his nation.

So now Musharraf is doing something: clamping down on dissident activity, e.g. civil rights attornies, the media, and others who are making his fight against terrorism difficult.

And the United States and Britain are objecting. Michell Malkin calls this a "train wreck".

It appears we are expecting Musharraf to fight Islamic terror in the same way we do... without knowing who the enemy is and without teeth. And we will withhold our billions in aid if he does things his way and not our way. Wow. Yes, trainwreck.

Do I need to spell out the likely outcome if we bribe him to do things "our way?"

If he insists on doing things HIS way...

* We will withhold our billions in aid and the radicals Musharraf was resisting will fill the vacuum
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.

Or, if he bows to OUR demands...

* He will be ineffective in his fight against the radicals
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.

We don't yet, as a nation, realize who the enemy is, and thus we haven't discovered the measures necessary to combat it. And we want to handcuff Musharraf in the same way we handcuff ourselves. I hear the train a comin'...

The God of Science, Atheism, and Reason

I’ve heard various discussions about science and atheism being “forms of religion” or “another religion” in contrast to the traditional religions of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. Why? Because both are “faith based.” Science is a belief system where all of reality, past, present, and future, is based on the belief that science and human reason hold all the answers worth knowing. This belief is so strong as to be held in a religious sense, denying any evidence to the contrary. In other words, science and reason become “faith based”. This may sound circular, and perhaps it is. After all, by definition, if one believes in reason, nothing is reasonable outside of it.

Recently, I heard a discussion by a former pastor, now an atheist. He claims atheism is not a form of religion. Atheism is based on pure “reason.” Therefore, he reasons science and reason are beyond a religion – above, superior to, and exclusive from religion. He apparently rejects the concept of “faith” altogether. He will deny he has faith in science or reason. Science and reason just are. They don’t require faith. Faith would pollute, distort, and destroy them both.

Religious people rely a great deal on science and reason as well. In fact, intelligent religious people have learned to integrate science, reason, and their religious faith. I have “reasoned” that people who deny “faith” are narrow, self-deceived, and eliminate a majority of potential answers to the mysteries that permeate human existence and purpose.

Atheists live in a world that only science has revealed. Their world is unstable, unpredictable and incomplete because science, its theories and facts, are unstable, unpredictable and incomplete. Scientific “facts” are constantly changing with each new scientific peer group affirmation. Who were the “scientists” of 2,000 years ago? Astrologists. Predictors. How long has “modern science” been in existence? Depending on who you believe to be the “father of modern science”, Galileo, or Robert Hook, today’s version of science began in the mid-1600’s. Science itself is a form of reason in a state of flux. What might science and reason reveal a thousand years from now? Something very different from what we have now is a certainty. What does that say about the accuracy and reliability of science today? It is less consistent and predictable than most world religions!

It’s amusing to see the atheist deny God, make science and reason their God, and then deny that they make science and reason their God. They deny God. They deny faith. They apparently live only in the present and reconstruct the past and guess the future based on as much faith as the most devout theist. Yet their “scientific methods” have been around for less than 400 years. Sounds like a severe case of Napoleon complex and presumptive superiority to me.

And on the topic of reason, which is the atheist’s number one value (aka “God” if they believed in one.) A reasonable person would have trouble believing reality, past, present, and future, can or should be based only on science, knowing that science is so relatively new, so changeable, and so utterly incomplete. It seems to me, being a reasonable person, that there is much more reality all around us than what science has revealed. Reason goes further. Reason has created religion. Reason has created faith. Reason leads to the belief in a distant past that science will never figure out and in a distant future science refuses to imagine. I’ll go yet further. It is reasonable that there are forces that communicate in subtle ways with humans. We don’t know the exact nature of these forces, they could be genetic, airborne, radio-frequency, or an undiscovered sixth sense. In the meantime, we call the force “spiritual.” We call the messages “revelation.”

The realities of life are tenuous and incomplete with only science as the revelator of all truth. The realities of life are richer, whole and hopeful when completed with faith that only God can create.

Bush is consistent on border insecurity.

This is the situation. A bunch of Kurdish folk in the northern portions of Iraq have it in their heads that the southern part of Turkey belongs to them. So they begin infiltrating southern Turkey and act somewhat like the Sunni and Shia do...they blow up things and people inside Turkey (after all, they are all Muslim).

Silly Turkey. They get the idea in their heads that they need to put a stop to the terrorist violence from the Kurds. The only reasonable way they see of defending their southern border is to eliminate the offending Kurds at their source: inside Iraq. So Turkey announces their plan to defend their border.

True to form, "defend no border Bush" comes trotting out and cries out "No, wait! Don't defend your border! Give us some time. We'll work things out!" Bush has taken seven years in this country to work out our border problems - I hope Turkey realizes where that has gotten us. Can you imagine 12 million Kurds in southern Turkey?

What hypocisy. What a double standard. We can invade Iraq from upteen thousand miles away and it is self defense. Turkey proposes to take some troops 2 miles into Iraq to defend themselves from ongoing murder and mayhem, and it's called interference.

This irony was enough to cause me to write to the Turkey Embassy in Washington DC and cheering them on to do whatever it takes to defend their border from terrorists. I wish we would do the same in our nation!

I was torn whether to title this blog The "Leave No Terrorist Behind" Policy or "The Only Good Border is an Open Border."

Bush Ignorance and Islamic Deception

Following are two examples of propaganda about Islam: The first is misconception out of ignorance; the second is misdirection out of a desire to deceive. Both are dangerous.

First, the misconception – quoting what President Bush believes about Islam (the entire referenced article is here):

"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person.

Among the several serious problems I have with President Bush are these: First, his statement above reveals his ignorance of Islam, calling it “a religion of peace”. The facts speak otherwise, which he chooses to ignore. He embraces the deception (takiyya) as illustrated in the second example, following. For some inexplicable reason, he chooses to ignore these facts:

1) The hundreds of terrorist acts conducted monthly around the world by people calling themselves Muslim (see previous post).
2) Islamic doctrine of violence against the infidel (non-Muslims) based squarely on the content of the Koran. The so-called Islamic radicals (Islamists) properly interpret, teach and promote what the Koran teaches and what has historically been practiced.
3) The relative silence, the lack of outrage of so-called “moderate” Muslims against the teachings of their violent, hateful, intolerant brethren.

Bush is a useful idiot in regard to Islam. With regard to Christianity, he is willing to slander his professed faith by comparing one violent act of a so-called Christian with the continuing, almost countless, violent acts of Muslims around the world. This kind of ignorant spouting by our President should not be tolerated – he is a danger to our nation.

Mr. President is apparently ignorant of the basic doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam. He is superimposing his peaceful, loving, tolerant Christian understanding of religion on a religion whose pure doctrine promotes violence, hate, and intolerance. Oh how I wish he would read Robert Spencer’s book, “Religion of Peace: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t.” or Gregory Davis’ book “Religion of Peace?: Islam's War Against the World.”

Ok. Enough about our President. Now for our second example: Misdirection. This one is from a blog new to me called Muslims Against Sharia. “L.A.” from that blog site posted the following response to my previous post. He first highlighted this quote from another person who has observed a problem with Islam…

"Gradually--painfully gradually--people are beginning to see that Islam is the enemy. Period."

This is L.A.’s response…

The above quote is one of the milder examples of how many Westerners view Islam these days. This quote is a part of the comment to the article titled "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims." posted on the Gates of Vienna blog. The article talks about radical Muslims in the West claiming to be moderates. It also brings up very interesting points. "[T]he government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered.", "The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and kitman", and "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can't."

But that's where the Gates of Vienna is wrong. The main problem is that the term 'Moderate Muslim' is poorly defined. There is a clear distinction between a 'Moderate Muslim' and an 'Islamist' and the distinction is in the ultimate goal. An Islamist believes in Islamic Supremacy. Islamist terrorists and their supporters want to achieve it by waging Jihad. Non-violent Islamists want to achieve it by peaceful and democratic means. The means are different, but the goals are the same: Islamic World Domination. Moderate Muslims do not believe in Islamic Supremacy. For someone not very familiar with the subject, the distinction may be subtle. But in reality, it is the most important, because everything that Democracies hold dear is based on this distinction. This is the Koran vs. the Constitution, Islamic State vs. Secular State, and ultimately, Dhimmitude (Subjugation to Islam) vs. Freedom. I cannot stress enough how important this distinction is!

Now, comes an uneasy task of weeding out false moderates. Hopefully, with a clear definition of a 'Moderate Muslim' that task could be a lot easier. Coming back to the title of this post. Muslim community as a whole is not the enemy. Part of it is. A large part. But not all of it. The next time you ask yourself a question "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims?" don't trust their assurances; look at their record. No matter how well false-moderate Muslims such as CAIR or MPAC polished their facades, they have a record. Whether it is their support of terrorism or advocating Islamic supremacy, any Islamist group or figure who's been around long enough, at one time or another has shown its/his/her true face. Just because some government official or some talking head declares someone to be a moderate Muslim, it doesn't make it so. There are several counter-terrorism and Islam experts who keep track of Islamists. Most of these experts happen to be non-Muslim, but there is also a list of moderate Muslims who could be used as trusted sources for these inquiries. The list of those prominent Muslims is posted at the upper right corner of our blog. So now, my non-Muslim friends, when you have the tools to identify REAL moderate Muslims, you can no longer use your ignorance as an excuse to declare that Islam is the enemy. [bold added for emphasis.]

L.A.

As much as I would like to believe L.A. and what he represents, I can’t help but suspect the above statement may be a perfect example of misdirection, an application of the Islamic “Taqiyya” which is the Islamic practice of deceitfully concealing their faith or beliefs during periods of persecution.

The question remains, my Muslim friends, do we really have the tools to identify REAL moderate Muslims?

A question that non-ignorant, but alarmed Islamic scholars would pose: How can the REAL moderate Muslims remain Muslim when Islamic doctrine supports the Jihadists, the Islamists, both today and throughout most of Islamic history? Are REAL moderate Muslims equivalent to so-called “nominal Christians” who may attend church and call themselves "Christian" but really couldn’t care less about what their relgion teaches? Are REAL moderate Muslims "nominal" Muslims?

Until I get a believable answer to this Islamic doctrine question, my “crap detector” will continue to sound the alarm.

I do have to admit, their blog site is worth a look. There is some interesting, even humorous stuff on there.